1 Genesis of Tribal Problems The basic features of our constitution indicate direction of change or modernization, ifone wants to say, of our society. Ours is a casteless, secular, democratic and socialistpolity and society. One may question this type of direction itself, but that could be aseparate issue for discussion. So far as this paper is concerned, this type of directionprovides point of departure for discussion on how we have formulated tribal problem. The point that follows from this is that we have shaped or we are supposed tohave shaped our policies and programmes to realize this type of change. We judge failureor success of our policies and programmes from this point of view. But what is moreimportant here is that our constitution considers – at least formally – every citizen asequal. Legal and administrative framework, institutional network and policies ofdevelopment in general are also considered suitable for tribals. Of course, tribals are partof the Indian society and general problems of consciously changing or modernizingIndian society are also applicable to them. But they form a special case in this widerframework and the problem is the nature and type of this special category. Perhaps thereis no unanimity among sociologists and anthropologists on this point. So the ―problemthat has been exercising in the minds of thinking persons in India, especially after theattainment of independence, is what should be the place of tribal peoples in theframework of the Indian nation and how they should be developed and brought to a levelwith the rest of the people – socially, economically, culturally and politically‖ (Datta-Majumdar, 1995:25). There were several debates on this issue at the dawn ofindependence. Three different approaches – of isolation, assimilation and integration –were put forth. Late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru took initiative in accepting the approach ofintegration (Nehru, 1955: 1-8) for tribal development policy. Thus, ―the tribal policy,apart from the constitutional provision, is the contribution of late Prime Minister ShriJawaharlal Nehru. He (also) advocated five principles, known as the tribal ‗panchshil‘ ‖(Joshi, 1987:11). Our various policies and programmes of tribal development aresupported to have been based on this approach of integrating tribals with the mainstreamand bring them at par with rest of the people. Of course, someone may raise questionabout this so-called ‗mainstream‘, and that is a worth raising issue. However, it does notconcern us at this juncture. Though it must be agreed that ―the Indian experiment of tribal development hasbeen hailed as unique in the Third World perspective of the treatment of the indigenouspeople, one has to take a balanced view of its processes‖ (Singh, 1982:1322). On oneside, the tribals have become full citizens. They have, by and large, maintained theiridentity. They have not extinguished and maintained their demographic growth rate. If weconsider this as a part of the integration process, why again the question of genesis aroseafter more than four decades of our experience? Our tribal development policies andprogrammes assumed that all the tribals will develop and will ‗integrate‘ themselves withthe so-called ‗mainstream‘. This has happened only in a symbolic way. Most of ourresearchers agree on this point that as a result of the planned tribal development,stratification on secular lines has taken place among tribals and only a small section hasbeen able to take advantage of our tribal development programmes. This being so, thequestion arises: where did we go wrong? For sometimes people believed that this isbecause of inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy that the programmes were not implemented well. We created special administrative set-up for tribal development andwe know that it has not shown better results. At some places tribals‘ cooperatives ofdifferent types were shaped. They worked well in the beginning. But their benefits didnot percolate to the lower strata of tribals. Experiments of tribal development throughvoluntary efforts have proved successful only in certain cases and in certain pockets. Onthe other hand, land alienation pushes the pauperized tribals out of their villages andhordes of tribal seasonal migrants move from place to place in search of work. Generally,dams have been constructed in tribal areas by involuntary acquisition of their land. Thetribals lose their land, habitat and milieu resulting into pauperization, causalization andpsychological stresses and strains. Official and illicit felling of forest trees have benefitedoutsiders while tribals face loss of their environment. This would lead us to revisit ourbasic assumptions about tribal problem. Is tribe a special category? If yes, of what type?What is the nature of tribal-non-tribal relationship? Why they are backward? Is this tribalbackwardness a cultural backwardness? ‘Tribe’ and Its Indian Context The word ‗tribe‘ is generally used for a ―socially cohesive unit, associated with aterritory. The members of which regard themselves as politically autonomous‖ (Mitchell,1979:232). Often a tribe possesses a distinct dialect and distinct cultural traits. The term‗primitive tribes‘ was often used by western anthropologists to denote ―a primaryaggregate of peoples living in a primitive or barbarous condition under a headman orchief‖ (Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol.15). Various anthropologists define tribe asa people at earlier stage of evaluation of society. This gave a sort of moral tone that thetribals are yet to develop and become civilized. It is because of this that they were alsoknown as ‗primitive‘, ‗barbarous‘, or ‗aboriginal‘ people. This sort of moralistic overtonewas later on reduced by using terms like ‗per-state society‘, ‗pre-literate society‘, ‗folksociety‘ or ‗simple society‘. All these terms with evolutionary approach indicated that thetribals are backward in comparison to other advanced groups. In this direction, tribaldevelopment means a transformation from pre-state to state society, from simple tocomplex society and like. An ideal type of tribe can be characterized as a society homogenous unit havingits own dialect, political and cultural institutions and territory which isolate it from theoutside influences. This sort of ideal type was constructed by early Britishanthropologists of evolutionary school and it fitted well to some of the African,American, and Australian tribes which they studied in those days. This type ofconstruction suited best to their cultural hegemony and colonial interests. In Indianlanguages we do not have any synonym for the word tribe. This means that the tribal –non-tribal categorization did not exist in pre-British era. With this background, whenBritish scholars started studying India, they wanted to call Indian society as a society ofvarious tribes. A Ph.D. thesis of Calcutta University was entitled as ‗Some KashatriyaTribes of Ancient India‘ (Law, 1923). Looking to the cultural diversity of Indian sub-continent and existence of certain highly ‗civilized‘ groups according to their ownstandards, the British scholars could not describe entire sub-continent as tribal. However,they were not sure about identifying particular groups as ‗tribe‘ or ‗caste‘. Lathamdescribes certain groups in Punjab and Sindh as tribes. He describes Lepcha and Kirata asNepalese tribes. But while describing ethnology of Gujarat, he was not sure whether the Memon, the Khoja, the Sidi, the Ahir, the Rabari and several such groups are tribes ornot. So he simply describes them (Latham, 1859: 262-271). Even Enthovan, in hisacclaimed work, Tribes and Castes of Bombay Presidency, does clearly distinguishbetween caste and tribe. Nationalists in India charged anthropologists for destroying national identity bycreating a category called ‗tribe‘ for which there was no synonym in almost all Indianlanguages. However, it should be noted that in India it was not the anthropologist but thecolonial officer who played the key role as an adviser, researcher and administrator intribal affairs. Ghurye writes: ―In the Census Report of 1891, Baines arranged the castesaccording to their traditional occupations. Under the category of agricultural and pastoralcastes, he formed a sub-heading and named it ‗forest tribes‘. In next two censuses, thoseof 1901 and 1911, Sir Herbert Rieley and Sir E.A. Gait included the so-called animists…Dr. Hutton, at the 1931 census, followed Baines, but substituted the term ‗primitivetribes‘ for ‗forest tribes‘‖ (Ghurye, 1943:7). It is necessary to remember here that it wasonly Ghurye who did not accept the category of ‗tribe‘ as propounded by the British. Butmost of the Indian academic, under the influence of their British counterparts, acceptedthe evolutionary definition of tribe (Vidyarthi and Rai, 1976: 167-174). However, when itcame to determining elements of tribes for the purpose of naming a group as tribe, therewas no unanimity. The degree and range of differences, especially with reference to theirrelations with the non- tribals, show so much variation that it was extremely difficult,almost impossible, to evolve one single ideal type of Indian tribals. There is so greatvariations in their ways of life, past and present, that any attempt to classify them wouldremain arbitrary in absence of its total understanding. But one thing is certain that except a few groups all the ‗tribals‘ had relations with‗non-tribals‘. What is necessary is to define the nature and type of that relationship. Wewill deal with this issue in the latter part of this paper. In the absence of a suitable definition of tribals, we have resorted to arbitraryselection of certain social groups living in forests and hills and we have belied them as‗scheduled tribes‘ for the purpose of some special programmes to be given to them asprescribed by the constitution. The story of how various social groups were included inthe schedule is well known and needs no repetition. It was exigency and it was alsonecessary to immediately select certain groups for providing special programmes. But itwas not necessary for our scholars and administrators to forcibly fit the characteristics,described by western anthropologists, to the ‗scheduled tribes‘ of India. This being so, social scientists have, today, moved away from Britishanthropologists‘ notion of a tribe as an isolate, homogenous, autonomous unit. Now theyview tribals in relations to non-tribals (Dube, 1977). This sort of change in perspectivechanges our entire view towards tribal problem. India is a very complex society. It is not the best example of plural society,because while pluralism stresses cleavages and discontinuities between the sections ofpeople differentiated by race, ethnicity, religion or culture, there has been an all-pervasive sense of cultural unity, interactions and interdependence and sharing of certaincommon symbols in spite of multifold diversities. Tribals were not alien, their isolationwas only partial and relative, and throughout the history they were part of Indiancivilizational universe. They were part of this wider civilization, at the same time they were different. They were not part of caste hierarchy in general. They were also not part of ‗Sanatan Dharma‘. Nature of the Tribal Problem Tribal problem has a reference to non-tribals. Comparatively, they are consideredbackward in almost all walks of life. Now, the question is, what is the nature of thisbackwardness? ‗Backwardness‘ and ‗tribal backwardness‘ have been defined in variousways depending upon the approach that one takes. All the definitions of backwardnessare based on arbitrary points of backwardness and development. However, we shouldtake note of some approaches. The Classical anthropological approach defines backwardness in terms of culture.From the evolution of culture point of view, there is obvious distinction between‗primitive‘ and ‗civilized‘, between ‗simple‘ and ‗complex‘ societies, between ‗scattered‘and ‗dense‘ population and above all between ‗pre-state (autonomous) society andsocieties that have developed state. This kind of evolutionary approach also delineates various stages of economic development on which different civilizations can be placed. Tribal backwardness is termed as ‗primitive‘ in this parlance, because they areconsidered to be on lower stage of development. It is also believed that if tribals are putin contact with advanced culture, they will learn and develop. People from ‗civilizedworld‘ become a sort of change agent when they come into contact with tribals. Taking tribals as isolated from the mainstream of Indian culture several peoplehave opined that this isolation should break and cultural contacts with the non-tribals willhelp them in overcoming their backwardness. Several anthropologists in India have triedto prepare scale of development and placed various tribal communities somewhere onthis scale after measurement. All tribal development programmes have a basicassumption that the development administration will help tribals. Not only that but someof the officers believe that they are there to develop tribals. This has happened onlypartially. On the other hand, the non-tribal intervention has created certain problems likepauperization, land alienation and seasonal migration. Indian social scientists have found the genesis of backwardness in socialsituations. The world ‗social‘ has been identified with caste and hence ‗defective castestructure‘ is considered to be the genesis of backwardness. Following paragraphs lucidlydescribe the genesis of backwardness in terms of caste: ―It has been noted already that the problem of backwardness has arisen onaccount of the defective Hindu social order. Even Islam and Christianity could notescape the all-pervasive influence of castes.‖ ―Many representatives who met us, and especially those of younger generation,attributed the present plight of a large number of the backward classes toeconomic backwardness and suggested with a facile logic that the only way toremove social evils was to improve the economic conditions of the depressed andbackward classes. The economic backwardness of a large majority is certainlyalarming, and in itself constitutes a colossal problem. But we must recognize thatin India economic backwardness is often the result and not the cause of socialevils. Our society was not built on an economic structure, but on the medieval ideas of ‗varna‘, caste and social hierarchy (Government of India, 1955:39). The idea of attributing backwardness to caste system has relevance in terms oftribal backwardness also. Because it was postulated that the tribes were ‗backwardHindus‘—a part of Hindu society and they were to be absorbed in the larger Hindusystem with the help of the process of sanskritization. However, the process ofdevelopment that started was a secular one of the linking tribal economy with nationaleconomy-that started penetrating in tribal region. The very development process hascreated stratification on secular lines within tribal community. The British notion of tribal backwardness stems from their notion of culturalbackwardness. The British policy tried to separate tribals from the non-tribals. WhenBritish entered tribal areas, there were encounters and uprisings. Hence, theadministration of such regions was separated from civil administration. This came to beknown as ‗non-regulation system‘. It was believed that this system, with its ―simplemethods of administration and avoidance of complicated rules and procedure, waspeculiarly suited to aboriginal race‖ (Sinha, 1970: 6). In1874, the Scheduled DistrictsAct was passed as a result of which civil and criminal justice, settlement operations andrevenue works were given to special officers in this area. The Government of India Act of1935 provided for ‗excluded areas‘ and ‗partially excluded areas‘ outside the scope of thelegislature and under the authority of the Governor. Various such acts were passed totribal areas from rest of India. Of course, such a separation was arbitrary, because therewas no clear demarcation between the tribals and the non-tribals. Varrier Elwin‘sapproach should be evaluated in this context, but unfortunately his British birth came inthe way of the better appreciation of his views. Some of his views on tribal problem stillhave a relevance. The British policy of isolation was opposed by the nationalists. They were veryclear that the tribals were part of Indian society (or Hindu society as some have put it).The ground for this approach was prepared by Shri A.V. Thakkar, popularly known asThakkarbapa, and some workers of ‗Servants of India Society‘ who did pioneering workamong the tribes. Many nationalist leaders supported tribal movements against theBritish. Congress, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, opposed the segregation oftribals from rest of India. It asked its workers to go to tribal areas, establishas hr ams andprepare them for the national struggle. Opposing British policy of isolation of tribals wasa part of its anti-British and nationalist ideology. Hence, it naturally consideredassimilation of tribals with the non- tribal India. Until independence, the general trend among sociologists and anthropologists wasto study the social and cultural aspects of tribal life. The question of what to do with thetribes did not bother them much. For them, it was clear that they were part of the Indiansociety and they believed that the difference between the tribals and non-tribals wouldgradually vanish and the tribals will merge in the mainstream. The only problem was tospeed up this process with as much ease as possible Tribal-Non-Tribal Relationship Historically speaking tribals always had relations with the non-tribals. But theformation of princely states by Rajputs in tribal regions led to a sort of relationshipbetween non-tribal kings and tribal subjects. Tribal situation in Gujarat has not beenstudied from this point of view. This was a ‗winner-loser‘ or ‗patronage-exploitation‘type of relationship. Apart from the mythological stories of tribal-non-tribal relations, therecorded history narrates that during Moghul period the land was in abundance and Bhilswere living in forest leading as prosperous life as non-tribal rural folks used to live. Itwas during this period that the Moghuls won over several kingdoms in Rajputana andRajput chiefs came to Gujarat. Some of them came to forest areas and won the Bhils infierce battles. The Bhils had to run away and settle in hills. The hill terrains were not thatfertile. The economic degeneration and relative isolation took place between the 12th andthe 16th century. Kesrisinh of Gabbargah (near Ambaji) killed a Bhil chief and establishedhis rule in Taranga in 1269 AD. Ashkaran was a well-known king in his line who wasnamed as ‗Maharana‘ by Moghul king Akbar. In Panchmahal Jalamsinh established‗Jhalod‘ village as his capital and subjugated Bhils of the surrounding area. One of hisdescendants named Kumar went further interior and established ‗Sunth‘ estate in 1255AD (Parikh, 1979: 133-147). The states of Baria, Naswati Chhota Udepur, Rajpipla,Vansda and Dharampura in tribal region have similar stories. In almost all cases the Bhilchieftains lost and left the places to settle in interior forest. These historical records prove that the Bhils (not ‗tribe‘ in modern parlance) wereeither subjugated or driven away in interior forests by invading Rajputs. The subjugationor life in forests brought changes in their lifestyle and culture. But it is necessary toremember that this sort of culture is the result of the historical experiences through whichthey have passed. In British and Gaikwad territories things took a fairly different shape. Gaikwadwon the kingdom from a Bhil chief and established his fort which came to be known as‗Sogandh‘ (Desai, 1920). Gaikwad invited Patidars from Kheda who cleared forests andsettled in tribal areas of Baroda in South Gujarat. Dublas of Valsad and Surat, Vasavas ofBharuch and Rathwasd of Baroda were traditionally cultivating land in this zone. TheRathwas were known as Rathwa Koli and Koli is a caste. However, they were not‗owners‘ of land in legal sense of the term because land settlement was not done in thisarea. Patidars settled here and became legal owners whereas tribals became theiragricultural labourers. The Parsis had fled into tribal belt in the 15th and 16th centuries to escape toprosecution at the hands of Sultan of Gujarat (Hardiman, 1985). They settled in ruralSouth Gujarat and gradually became landowners whereas erstwhile owners Dublasbecame their ‗halis‘ or landless labourers. How they became landless labourers is to beseen in their land relations. Things were not much different in Rajasthan, MadhyaPradesh and Maharashtra. As a result of the Muslim invasion of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Malwa that occurredduring that time, many Rajput warriors fled these areas and came to settle in the Narmadavalley. Around 1437 AD, the Rathore (Rajput) chieftain Anand Dev claimed for himself the kingdom of Aliraipur, his kin carving up Phulmal, Sondwa and Jobat as their territory (Baviskar, 1995: 54). This type of formation of states in tribal regions subjectedtriba ls to the Rajputauthority. Thus, when the word ‗tribe‘ was coined for forest dwellers, they were notisolated and politically autonomous people. They were already integrated within theadministration of British India or within the Indian states where the British kept a watch.Thus, the backwardness of Indian tribes is because of this subjugation and not because ofisolation and autonomy. Though states were established in tribal regions, there was not much ‗administration‘ bynative states in interior tribal villages. Native states invited non-tribal cultivators fromplains and settled them in not much interior parts. Compared to native tribals, the non-tribal peasants came with superior agricultural technology and produced surplus with thehelp of the tribal labourers. In almost all cases non-tribals who came late becamelandowners whereas the native tribals became landless labourers. In Gujarat, this sort ofmaster-servant relationship developed in some parts having mixed population.Backwardness of landless labourer tribes should be attributed to this relationship. Thenon-tribal masters were against any sort of social reform among these tribals and theywere harassing those tribals who were doing such activities (Joshi, 1980: 21). Around1922 when Jugatrarn Dave went to Sarbhon village and started teaching Halpatis, hisefforts met with failure because their masters did not allow Halpatis to attend school(Dave, 1975). Not only that, but they were kept as bonded laborers by the landownermasters and they had no freedom tochoos e their fate (Breman, 1974: 36-45). Thedisintegration of ‗hali‘ (bonded labour) system was even more painful for erstwhileservants. Now, he is free in a free market but has no job. The question for him was notonly that of liberation but also of empowerment so that he gets his dues. When we talk of land and tribals, land acquisition for development purpose mustbe kept in mind. Almost all dams are located in tribal areas. This location is importantbecause the irrigation helps non- tribals in plains, while tribals get alienated from theirland. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 provides for cash compensation. It is assumedthat with the compensation in form of cash they receive, the tribal oustees wouldpurchase land elsewhere and get resettled. The special situation of the tribals was nottaken into consideration and policy for their rehabilitation was not formulated. As aresult, several thousand tribal oustees were deprived in such development projects (Joshi,1987: 21-26). Same is the case of tribal‘s relationship with forests. Prior to 1854, forest was nota scarce commodity and tribals were traditionally enjoying forest rights. But then forestwood was required to build battleships in England. It was also required to build railwaylines. When the British government started cutting forest for this and such other purposes,there were encounters. By the enactment of the Forest Act of 1864, the government tookaway all the customary forest rights of the tribals. They werea llowe d to cultivate forestland only by paying fines. Thus, tribal backwardness is neither cultural nor social (caste-based) at root. They werenot isolated, homogeneous tribals as viewed by some British anthropologists. They hadrelations with people in plains. But, in this relationship, they have always remained losersand suffered in one way or the other. This is so in many other countries where nativetribals have lost to invaders. But, the context of tribal society with the non-tribal societyis different in India and hence the nature of the problem is different. The tribals and non-tribals have been living side by side for centuries. They were not completely cut off fromone another. Conclusion So, the tribals are part of the Indian society, at the same time they are different. Specialpolicy and programmes are required to address and redress these differences.Whenwe plan for tribal development, we have to regard these differences, take a specialnote of their different situations and capabilities and provide them facilitation to developon the line they want to take. The very meaning of development is unfolding from within.This means that the tribals have to unfold their capabilities to develop. Outsiders cannotdevelop tribals; they can become only facilitators if they want to do so. If they have tounfold from within, they must have participation in any development decision. Their feltneeds should be transformed in development programmes. Nehru did this in slightlydifferent manner when he proclaimed ‗Panchsheel‘. How can tribals participate in their development programmes? They canparticipate only if they are considered as equals. The command and obey relationship cantake place between un-equals only. Individual tribal is too weak to stand as equal againsta non-tribal. So they have to get, organized. The forms of organization could be differentdepending upon different programmes. The non-tribals have to work as facilitator fororganization-building. Once organized on the basis of felt needs, they will developcontent and programmes for their participation. When tribals‘ participation, in differentdevelopment programmes, is accepted in various departmental documents, it should notremain ceremonial. 2 Parameters of Tribal Development Some Key Conceptual Issues Anand Kashyap ‗Development‘ of a society, to my mind, instead of being a monolithic and linear processof creating economic abundance, is a holistic process of social transformation from lesscreative to greater creative participation of its members at the individual and collectivelevels. Emphasis on ‗creative participation‘ of the members and institutions impliesminimization of the entropy or disorderliness in a social system and maximization of‗creativity‘ so as to achieve a symbiotic transformation of ‗man-nature and society‘relationship without generating any antithesis or conflicts between them. In thisperspective I have tried to raise two conceptual issues with regard to ‗development‘: oneconcerning the econocentric- modernization model of development and the other concerning pluralism vis-a-vis national integration with special reference to tribal culture.Most of the problems confronting a society in general and tribal societies in particularemanate from the prevalent model of ‗development‘ which can be characterizedculturally as a sterile and economically a monolithic model, i.e., ―capital and energyintensive, extractive, discriminatory, waste-generating and non- regenerative, power andwealth centralizing, and corporate in nature.‖ Let me elaborate little more on my emphasis on ‗creativity‘. ‗Work‘ in fact has twoaspects or values, viz., the instrumental or the economic value and aesthetic or theexpressive value. A human action or work has a third dimension also, i.e., atranscendental value, but it does not concern us here. If, instead of placing balanced andintegral emphasis on both the aspects, only one aspect is emphasized, as it happens in the prevalent model of ‗development‘, itwill rob the human endeavour of its creative thrust to excel and breed alienation and entropy in realms and levels of social living. Such an approach can impose a policy decision fromabove but can never unfold the latent creative potentialities of a society from withinresulting into a lopsided, quantitative and monolithic ‗deve1opmnt‘ with the increase inthe extent of alienation at the individual and collective levels both. In my perceptiontherefore, I am inclined to define ‗development‘ as a process of ‗increase in creativity‘and decline in entropy or extent of criminality which is possible only when a holistic andsymbiotic process of social transformation could be ensured. With regard to such aprocess of ‗development‘ the question is not merely that of creating abundance orprosperity as an alternative to the removal of poverty, but it also involves questions suchas: Is abundance real alternative to poverty? If yes, then, how it is created and what ire itscosts, who bears them and how the benefits of ‗development‘ are distributed or who isbenefited by the outcome most: the ‗haves‘ or the ‗have-nots‘? The problem ofdistributive justice again is not a simple problem which could be tackled exclusivelythrough some structural-institutional mechanism alone. It involves a great deal of moralissues as well as the realms of self awareness or consciousness also. The collapse of awell-structured system of Soviet edifice, reinforced through well-thought out ideologyand institutional mechanisms, is not a distant example of human history to support ourcontention. Many problems concerning tribal development like displacement, poverty alleviation,health and disease, land alienation, indebtedness, criminalization, etc., in fact, are theresultant effects of such a ‗development‘ model of its econocentric perspective. Thoughthe much publicized ‗human face‘ of this model projected various welfare schemes butthey are nothing more than cosmetics or administering pain- killers instead of providing agenuine remedy to the ailment. It is quite an established fact that during the last fewdecades of such a model of development disparities between the rich and poor, urban andrural, nature and civilization have increased to a staggering proportion and the centralizedmega projects of irrigation and power generation have shown more their inhuman face ofdisplacing the poor tribals and generating revolts than harnessing the creative potentialsof the human lots that self-reliant and eco- friendly, job-oriented smaller projects couldhave done. Take the case of mega irrigation projects which have aroused a bigcontroversy recently. Movements launched against such projects by the social activists and environmentalists like Sunderlal Bahuguna in Garhwal, Baba Amte and MedhaPatkar in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are quite well known. In a study of large-scale projects with regard to the displacement problem it was estimated that during 40years from 1951 to 1991, 185 lakh people have been displaced--an average of 4,60,000unfortunates every year. And, three out of every four ousted by such dams are tribals andout of 77 per cent oustees only 29 per cent are rehabilitated.2 Paradoxically, the tribalswho have been the genuine and rightful children of Mother Nature are being projected asinimical to the conservationist policy vis-a-vis the urban elite who in reality are the worstexploiters of the forest culture and its biotic wealth. A paper prepared by the PlanningCommission of India states that a large majority of India‘s population is beingincreasingly denied access to natural resources. But, on the other hand, the flow of theseresources to urban centres, to support luxury consumption, continues unabated.3 Thebiggest failure of the modernization model of development is that it has disintegrated thesymbiotic holism of ‗man-nature and society‘ relationship through its overemphasis oneconocentrism and consumerism, and the result is alienation and lopsided development.The enduring and sustainable development, therefore, is always a self-generative, self-reliant, need-based and not greed-based, and an emancipatory process of socialtransformation which leads a society to become a ‗self-re liant‘ and ‗creative‘ societyrather than merely a ‗developing‘ or a ‗developed‘ society as such. Generating affluenceor abundance is not a sufficientcon d it io n of genuine ‗deve1opment‘. Development, tomy mind, is not a simple bipolar or linear process of change from the levels of‘ scarcityto that of abundance as in a capitalist society where consumerism is the religion andmarket functions as God, but rather it is a three-dimensional process involving a take-offstage from the levels of ‗poverty‘ and ‗deprivation‘ and culminating into the thirddimension of evolving a ‗self-reliant‘ and ‗creative‘ society where ‗development‘,‗environment‘ and ‗culture‘ go hand in hand and human face of man is not lost. Instancesof such a ‗development‘ are though not frequent but not non-existent also. The exampleof Ralegan Shindi—a small village in Maharashtra, experiencing a holistic developmentfrom economic to cultural levels under the selfless and inspiring leadership of AnnaHazare is the burning example. Ralegan Shindi is a small village of the population of1,200 divided into 220 families (1971 census) which earlier had a declining agricultureand a vanishing forest and as a result to compensate this loss the entire village took toillicit brewing of liquors as the primary industry. This illegal industry, in turn broughtmany outside developments making this small village known in the police records as thevillage of toughs and goons, thus nourishing a culture of criminality. Government andother voluntary agencies like Tata Relief Committee and the Catholic Relief Servicebrought in medicines and provided financial help also for constructing village wells, treeplantation, etc., but that proved to be mere window-dressing. Anna Hazare, a retiredmilitary person, inspired by the writings of Swami Vivekananda, took the challenge ofupliftment of Shindi and approached this task through cultivating moral awareness, i.e.,generating self-awareness first with the help of renovating the abandoned and dilapidatedvillage temple called Yadav Baba‘s temple and this shrine in turn served as the heart ofentire community--a real community centre—of all socio- religious activities (satsang)and moral regeneration programmes. Anna Hazare‘s second task was to close down allliquor brewing and alcohol and narcotics. The third step was the creation of systems toimprove the economy of the village with an emphasis on self-reliance in terms of humanas well as natural resources. Thus, the basic emphasis of Anna Hazare was to evolve a‗civil society‘ rather than an ‗affluent society‘—a society which is responsible to itselfand its environment, and responsive to the needs of its members, rich or poor, upper casteor lower caste.4 As K. S. Singh informs, in the similar vein, creative spirit of the tribals in history wasunleashed through the Bhakti movements spearheaded by Chaitnya who had passedthrough the Jharkhnand, and Kabir who cared for the deprived lot during medieval times.These moral and social reform movements in different saintly orders brought a moral andsocial reform among Oraons, Santhals, Mundas and Bhils. In this sense ‗TribalBhagatism‘ served as a bridge between the tribal (jana) and non- tribal(ja ti) Hindusociety.5 In modern times it was Mahatma Gandhi who could make a creative use of thiscultural tradition. While to Hindu peasantry he appeared as a Bhakti preacher, to tribalsas Bhagat. He spoke predominantly in Bhakti idioms of Rama Rajya, efficacy ofRamnam, service to Daridra Narain in his evening prayer meetings which acted as themost effective two-step flow of communication with the masses. His moral preachings,teetotalism, maintaining purity, etc, appealed to tribal Bhagat leaders and generatedmovements like Tana Bhagat movement among Oraons, Haribaba movement among theHos and allied tribes and Rajmohini movement among the Gonds. It was Gandhi whocould infuse into these traditional Bhakti movements political overtone of the freedommovement and ideology ofswades hi ands war aj, civil disobedience andahims a. Amongthe Bhils of Rajasthan and Gujarat too such an impact of Gandhi was quite evident.Thakkar Bappa—a Gandhian--quotes a Bhilbhajan to this effect: Do you know whatGandhi tells you? Give up liquor, eating meat, stealing, rioting, spincha rk ha , educate children, and worship Ram as the true God.6 Thakkar Bapa worked out quite successfully to transform tribals though Bhil Seva Mandal and Ashrams (residential schools). Unlike government programmes which are predominantly economistic in natureand conducted half-heartedly andinterfered selfishly by the politicians, Gandhi andother Bhakti-based approaches were primarily cultural, value-centric and educational thatsought to unfold their creative energies and weld them in the task of nation-building.Thus, the first issue concerns with the econocentric and modernization model ofdevelopment. The second major issue on which I want to share my thoughts is the issueof national integration vis-a-vis pluralism, i.e., the issue of creating unity within diversitywith special reference to tribals. In contrast to many other civilizations like Greeco-Roman and Semetic, Indiancivilization can be characterized as ‗pluralist‘ in orientation which not only toleratescontrasts and diversity but even goes a step ahead to seek enrichment from the diversitythrough various kinds of acculturative processes ranging from arts and ideas to faiths andphilosophies. Right from the ancient times the mainstream or the dominant Aryo-Brahmanic tradition has co-existed with the native aborigines(ja nas ) and, despitedifferences and minor conflicts, learnt from each other and co-existed without defacingone another‘s identity and styles of life. This kind of pluralism can be characterized as the‗integral pluralism‘ where cultural diversity and social minorities co-exist within aloosely structured unity and the part enjoys a fair degree of autonomy within the whole. The integral pluralism can be illustrated with the help of ‗oceanic circles‘ whereeach circle is autonomous to a degree but at other levels merges itself into theencompassing ring of waves. Thus aboriginals and tribes as ‗minorities‘ had traditionally been a part of Indiancivilization and their way of life had contributed a great deal in its formation anddevelopment throughout the history. It is only a few hundred years back that tribals werecut-off from the mainstream and marginalized. With the onset of industrialization andurbanization, coupled with the increasing state interference and control in every sphere oflife, tribals were accorded an isolationist treatment. British gave a new form and meaningto traditional ethnic pluralism. From ‗minority‘ status they got the ‗marginal‘ status. Thiswas ‗equidistant‘ notion of pluralism which meant equidistanciation of different ethnicgroups from the centre of power and authority. The third kind of pluralism is thepluralism of ‗market economy‘ where instead of cultural values or the political authorityas the binding force it is the force of ‗market economy‘ that controls and coordinates theco-existence of heterogeneous groups. This is a typical neo-colonialist and hegemonisticapproach of the modern capitalist world where pluralism leads to economic exploitationof the Third World countries and exploitation of the weaker or marginal sections by thestronger ones through creating economic dependence upon them. ‗Centre and periphery‘thesis has been its dominant ideology. For the latter two approaches tribals constitute‗other societies‘ or ‗other culture‘, i.e., not an integral part of one‘s own culture,deserving some concessions only and not the natural rights. Their existence is justifiedeither as curios to be retained and conserved like museum pieces or proselytized andassimilated into the mainstream hagemonism. It is only first approach of ‗integralpluralism‘ that seeks to develop all ethnic groups and weaker sections as a part of one‘sown society and not merely as a marginal group or the other society. The isolationistpolicy which envisaged to keep tribal aborigines a separate ethnic identity is an outcomeof this approach and lately now the third approach to pluralism i.e., ‗market economy‘approach has also joined hands with the British-initiated authoritarian pluralism whichhas further marginalized tribals exposing them to double or rather triple exploitation, viz.,politica1, religious and economic exploitation. Political exploitation is done by thepolitical parties through their treatment of the tribals and ethnic groups as vote-bankdeposits and economic exploitation in the labour markets by the contractors andindustrialists and cultural or religious exploitation by the missionaries and otherinternational agencies. Indian civilization has been characterized by Rabindra Nath Tagore as ‗Aranyak Sanskriti‘, i.e., quintessentially a forest culture, for forest instead of representing a pre-civilized barbaric stage on the evolutionary scale, has rather been the home of adeveloped civilization where Vedic hymns were composed and Indian cosmology anddifferent philosophical systems were created. Forests served as the abode of twoparadoxical cultures: one, the highly enlightenedr is his (seers) as the carriers of highculture and second, the aboriginies or tribals (janas) ---the most unsophisticated lot livingin the caves and mountains having their own cultural traditions and styles of life. Thus,like modern metropolis, ancient forests too were the home of contrasts which sometimesopposed one another but were mostly cooperative and dependent upon each other. Thenarratives in the epics ofRam ayana andMahabhar ata provide ample testimony of thisnatural dependence between the ‗primitives‘ and the ‗civilized‘. The word ‗primitive‘ isused here in the positive sense, instead of the prevalent negative one, to connote thepower of vital aestheticism and holistic perception of human existence which theBrahmanic civilization lacked. In fact, ‗primitivism‘ has served Indian civilizationvigorously as a back-shining of the ‗medal‘, i.e., an inevitable facet of the civilization. AsLannoy has observed, whenever the Great Tradition was at the verge of sterility, whenasceticism and dry scholasticism threatened the general health of Hindu society waves offresh energy seem to have coursed upward from the Antepodes, i.e., ‗minority‘ societies.7In fact, the dialectic of ‗aestheticism‘ vis-a-vis ‗asceticism‘, which is a major constant ofIndian Civilization, has been a contribution of this co-existence of two different cultures.Among various dichotomies likePrakriti and Purusha, Pravrittii andNivr itti oneessential component was a contribution of the native cultural traditions. Even Ghotul wasthe prototype ofAs hr ama. Thus, the vitality of Indian Civilization lies in the culturalcorrespondence between its ‗classical‘ and the ‗primitive‘ traditions and its ‗integralpluralism‘ which nourished diversity to enrich unity. It is in the medieval and modernepochs of Indian history that with the closing of the social ranks and excessiveinterference of political authority creativity of such an ‗integral pluralism‘ wasundermined and a hiatus between the ‗heterodox‘ and the ‗orthodox‘ traditions, betweenthe castes and the tribes and between the folk and the elite, got created. It was in the post-independence India that a planned national perspective of integrating tribals with the national mainstream was envisaged and the five-principles (Panchsheel) of tribal development were evolved but those were hardly practised. The basic limitation in the practised policies is that instead of utilizing the traditional wisdomand our own cultural idioms as Mahatma Gandhi and other social activists didgovernment policies depend more on bureaucrats and west-trained middle class expertisewhich lacks in coming to grips with the reality at many points, specially with regard to itscultural moorings. Besides, instead of understanding and deciphering traditional ‗integralpluralism‘ carefully, at the instance of politicians and vested interests, it is mostly appliedin a distorted manner thus serving their own interests rather than that of the tribals.Mostly we are metropolitanist in our outlook and looked at the tribals as ‗other people‘rather than as our own brethren. The entire approach of according a ‗marginal‘ statusinstead of traditional ‗minority‘ status to them reflects this attitude which should beproperly examined and reviewed15 Impact of Development Projects on Tribals It is axiomatic that all human societies, at all times, possess a creative capacity fordevelopment in accordance with their own internal laws and necessities, as well asflexible adaptation-innovation complexes corresponding to the changing localcircumstances. Whereas neither development nor spatial mobility is unique to moderncivilization, the contemporary imposition of the supposedly universal model ofdevelopment and the consequent dispossession problematique is of a qualitativelydifferent order, built on the unequal socio-political structure, both at national and globallevels. Small wonder, social science literature is by now overburdened withpost-modern critique of development history and the appalling results. What then are the basic tenets and assumptions of this dominating developmentparadigm which have direct bearing on tribal people‘s problematique? Being deeplyrooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the paradigm of development has treated the restof the biosphere as an enemy to be defeated and tortured for immediate maximization ofexchange value. This anthropocentric and essentially reductionist perspective of naturalworld has eroded the ecological resource base of the humanity and destroyed thecustomary tribal matrix of harmonious, holistic and anticipatory equilibrium betweennature and culture. Secondly, the doctrine of individualism and statist ideology being crucial for capitalistand neo-colonialist development, the collective identities are severely impaired andstigmatized. Instead of evolving a culturally specific balance between the principles ofindividualism and corporate existence, the epistemology of individualism andprivatization of resource base have been furiously imposed for the elimination of the veryexistence of indigenous collective identities, and usurp their territorial resources,knowledge systems and the labour for the overtly exploitative market. Thirdly, thebasic assumption of reductionism in the modern sciencebe ing partsare ontologically prior to the wholes, and the emphasis on uniformity, separability andhomogeneity among the objects generated a context-tree abstraction of knowledge and anobsession for quantification like the GNP andra te of economicgrowth rather thanquality of life. Fourthly, as the dominant notion of development is gradual triumph of reason,rationality and value neutrality, it has consistently cultivated a contempt forconsciousness, values, ethicsand traditions, and thereby, institutionalized the belief thatabandoning the traditional cultural and institutional elements is thesine-qua-non ofdevelopment. And finally, the conception and theory of development firmly insists that themotive forces of development of the backward people are external infusion of capital,technology and institutions, an alibi for neo-colonial hegemony. In sum, development projects are handed down without any concern for thecultural-historical and ecological complexities prevailing in the tribal regions. Basedupon anthropocentric premises of mutilation nature, customary institutions and values,imposition of individualism, statist ideology and reductionist worldview, thedevelopment practices have wrecked the physical, cultural and cognitive survival of thelarge masses of the country, specially tribals,dalits , minorities,wom en and children.Development has become a label for plunder and violence. Much has been written on the large scale physical displacement of tribals due to mega hydroelectric and miningprojects . But this indicates only a partial truthand somehow, inadvertently perhaps, concealsthe unpalatable whole truth,of capitalist exploitation and imperialist control. Development project encompasses a wholegamut of territorial resources taken away by the state, powerful individuals, privateenterprises and transnational corporations, as well as displacement from one‘s ownculture, creativity, community, power and knowledge systems through involuntarysuperimposition of the values and institutions of the globally and nationally dominantsocieties. The nexus between dominant development paradigm andadivas i imbroglio caneasily be traced to the colonial era, though the criticality of their survival is essentially apost-colonial phenomenon. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the colonialadministration began the process of conferring legal titles of landownership to individualsin some tribal regions, and treated the rest of the land as res nullius which effectivelymeant absolute ownership of the state. After independence, private ownership isinstitutionalized and massive customary corporate lands and land-based resources arealienated by both the state and private entrepreneurs. Survey and settlement of land happens to be the prerequisite for conferring individualproprietorship. But large parts of tribal areas still remain unsurveyed, and elsewhere theadopted method of cadastral survey precludes measurement of land beyond 90 slope.Consequently, between 25 and 40 per cent of cultivated lands of the tribals arederecognized, and/or metamorphosed the chief/headman as the real owner of land.Moreover, by derecognizing the corporate rights over land-based resources on whichnearly 15 million tribals currently depend to some extent, between 40 and 80 per cent ofthe totalla nd-bas ed resources in tribal regions are snatched away without anycompensation whatsoever.Bes ides , 12 per cent of the tribals who practice shiftingagriculture are treatedas illegal encroachers on the ground that the land is notcontinuously cultivated. The increased commercial extraction of timber, establishment of numerous forest-based industries and the so-called development projects have mutilated the forests, scaredaway the game, polluted water resources, depleted the fish stocks and eventually,devastated the tribal livelihoods. Agribusiness, plantations, afforestation by mono-cultural species, refugee settlements, villagification, highway projects, some land reformmeasures, biosphere reserves, game sanctuaries, national parks, reserved forests, etc., have displaced the tribal people from their survival bases and sustainable use of the forest resources. A common feature shared by most of the tribal habitats is their remoteness andmarginal quality of territorial resources. In the past, exploitation of such poor regions wasfound both difficult and uneconomic. But, the recent rapid technological advancementand unrivalled economic and political strength of world capitalism, and the rising powerof neo-colonialism through the G-7 directly and the IMF, IBRD, etc., as agencies, havecreated favourable conditions for the evasion and extraction of natural resources from theecologically fragile territories of the tribal peoples. Thus, forced evictions of tribals tomake way for mammoth capital intensive development projects have become adistressingly routine and ever-increasing phenomenon. The zealously extracted water andsub-surface minerals accentuated the tribals‘ dispossession from their lands, forests,wildlife and water resources. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (and the amendment 1984)is indiscriminately invoked to alienate tribals‘ lands in the name of public purposes. Thatis to say, for the greater good of the Indian people, few tribals should have to makesacrifices in terms of surrendering their survival bases and accept the developmentprojects as fait accompli. It is not a mere coincidence that there is a heavy concentration of industrial and miningactivities in the central tribal belt. All the massive steel plants, NALCO, heavyengineering concerns, most river basin development schemes and hydropower projects, achain of forest-based and ancillary industries and an increasing number of highlypolluting industries are located in this region. These projects are intrinsically associatedwith the predatory activities of giant corporations and profit seeking agencies, connectedwith an undercurrent of authoritarian and ethnocentric values and political institutions.Disinformation and suppression of dissent are integral dimensions of these developments.And the process has become acute ever since the adoption of New Economic Policy inmid-1991. Despite intense industrial activity in the central Indian tribal belt, the tribalemployment in modern enterprises is negligible. Apart from the provisions ofApprenticeship Act, there is no stipulation for private or joint sector enterprises to recruitcertain percentage of dispossessed tribal workforce. The public too denies theirrecruitment under different pretexts. Meanwhile, the tribals are forced to live injuxtaposition with alien capitalist relations and cultures, with traumatic results. They areforced onto the ever-expanding low paid, insecure, transient and destitute labour market.Indeed, about 40 per cent of the tribals of central India supplement their income byparticipating in this distorted and over exploitative capitalist sector. Besides, many moreare slowly crushed into oblivion in their homeland or in urban slums. This is nothingshort of ethnocide. At stake is their economic and cultural survival. Let us briefly glance at the hydroelectric projects. India happens to be the secondmost dammed country in the world. It invested over Rs. 193 billion by 1985 and thefigures has probably doubled by now. The World Bank has directly funded as many as 87large-scale dam projects in India as against only 58 for the whole of the African continentand 59 for Latin America. Between 1981 and 1990, the World Bank provided $7 billionfor such projects in India, i.e., one-fifth of its total funding for 85 countries world over. Suffice to reiterate that almost all major darn projects in India are intrinsically linked toworld capitalism and its obsequious national stooges. Nearly 60 per cent of these largedarns are located in central and western India where about 80 per cent of the tribals live.But no more than 5 per cent of their lands are assured of irrigation. In fact, the traditionalmethods of water harvesting and spreading are rendered non- viable. The supply ofelectric power is again a luxury and constitute obvious exceptions in tribal regions. There is no reliable and complete information on the number of tribals displacedin the country since independence. The estimates range between5 and 7 million-- mostlyby the dams, followed by mines and industries— or approximately one in every tentribals has been displaced by different development projects. It is not only the magnitudeof involuntary tribal displacement that should attract the special concern but also thesacrifice of collective identity, historical and cultural heritage, and of course, the survivalsupport. Small wonder, poverty, malnutrition, mortality, morbidity, illiteracy,unemployment, debt bondage, and serfdom among the tribals is markedly higher. Despite the unfathomable gravity of the sufferings of the displaced in terms ofeconomic pauperization, political disempowerment and cultural alienation, India--thelargest democracy on earth--is yet to formulate a national policy for the relocation andrehabilitation of project oustees. For each project, separate policies are made in an ad hocand ephemeral manner. Faced with the national and international pressure, the Indiangovernment sought to have a national policy, but curiously there are at least three draftsfrom three ministries in circulation. It seems a just policy demands political battles for arule of law even in a democracy. Incidently, the indiscriminate involuntary displacement of the tribals violates severalnational and international instruments. For instance, the UN Convention on Civil andPolitical Rights (1966) holds that ―in no case may a people be deprived of its own meansof subsistence‖ (Art.2). Similarly, the UN Declaration on Racism and RacialDiscrimination (1978) specially endorses, ―the right of indigenous people to maintaintheir traditional structure of economy and culture‖ and stresses that ―their land, landrights and natural resources should not be taken away from them‖ (Art.21). The ILOConvention 107 on Tribal and Indigenous Population (1957), which India ratified in1962, abides that when in exceptional circumstances the tribals are displaced, they shallbe provided with lands of quality, at least equal to that of the land previously occupied,individually and collectively by them, suitable for their present needs and futuredevelopment. But hardly a quarter of the tribals displaced have been given alternate dryand mostly infertile lands in exchange of the loss of their private lands. The pastoralists,hunters, food gatherers, forest land cultivators, shifting cultivators, landless artisans,forest produce collectors and others who lack individual titles to lands, constituting atleast one-third of the total displaced tribals, did neither receive any compensation noralternate employment. The rest received meagre cash compensations in severalinstalments, calculated on the basis of local market value of land, which incidentlyhappened to be the lowest due to the restrictions on land transfer in scheduled areas. Evenif India does not ratify the revised ILO Convention 169 (1989), it is legally bound by the provision of ILO Convention 107 until it denounces it; and that is not possible before the year 2002. India happens to be one of the worst countries with regard to the rehabilitation ofthe displaced. In fact, it has provisions like the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition andDevelopment) Act, 1957 which deny to compensate the displaced people. This is nowopen to TNCs. There is, of course, no legal provision except in the sixth schedule area torecognize group rights of tribals over their land and land-based resources and theircultural and political institutions. In sum modern development projects not only physicallydis pla ce increasing number oftribal people from their territorial survival resources and thereby destroy their traditionalsocio-economic structures but also tend to mutilate their very identity, socialreproduction, culture, art forms, language skills and the just limited autonomy. Althoughpublished as to serve the common interest of the Indian people, these giant monstrositiesbenefit only a small affluent elite and multinational funding agencies and otherobsequious stooges of world capitalism. Meanwhile, the tribal people get marginalizedand forced to enter the dehumanized cheap labour market and slum residency. Theyinvariably face recolonization and general economic subjugation, socio-culturalstigmatization and various degrees of ethnocide. The fundamental asymmetry in thedecision making process is aggressively articulated through the ideologies ofindividualism, modernization and nation building. Their customary holistic andanticipatory conception of nature, generic and corporate character of land, communityoriented values and collective identities, self-management systems, cognitive heritage,unique socio-cultural-linguistic framework and consensual decision making process arederecognized and castigated resulting in a silent and subtle form of ethnocide. Thecultural hegemony of the dominant global and national society has eroded thereproductibility of their collective existence—an indication of irreversible ethnocide. Fortunately, however, an increasing number of conscious and concernedindividuals and organizations in search of alternative visions of future tend to support thestruggles of the tribal people to defend, recuperate and revalidate their customary rightsover their land and land-based endowments as well as for protection of their cultures andself-esteem. Tribal survival and sustainable development depend upon a system of self-development based on their own creative force, corporate productive resources and cognitive structures, where the terms of dynamic are defined bythe concerned people themselves. This, of course, is a political question as well as ahistorical imperative of our times. Meanwhile, it is not too much to ask from a democratic we1fare state acomprehensive national policy on socio-economic and cultural rehabilitation of thedisplaced persons through an act of parliament which should include (a) beforeundertaking any large scale project that displaces persons, all other alternatives be explored, and that the considered and free opinion of all thepotentially affected are ascertained; (b) the cost or rehabilitation, environmentalrestoration and ecological sustainability of the region should form an integral part of the project; (c) the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 amended to prohibit its misuse and define theterm ‗public purpose‘; (d) regulations applicable to non-tribals for alienation of triballands be made applicable as far as possible to both public and private national andmultinational enterprises; (e) the quantum of compensation be determined in the land ofindividual and corporate rights over land and land-based survival resources, and thereshall be fair provision of royalty to the displaced on the value of surface and sub-surfaceresources; and (f) resettlements be in terms of community for oustees present and futuresocio-economic and cultural survival with dignity in the hostile surroundings. The aforesaid thought at best can only be meaningful through political activism of thesystem. Struggles of the affected persons alone may not have great significance. Thosewho look forward to a holistic, ecologically sustainable and culturally specific model ofdevelopment need to join. And, the concerned scientists need to provide the intellectualinput and play the advocacy role as is done in several other countries. The voluntaryorganizations too need introspection, for they too are largely sponsored by such fundingand sponsoring agencies which have vested interests in the current development projects.After all, all these activists and academics are inclined to build a model of developmentbased on the principle of satisfying individual human needs and raising the quality of lifethrough greater self-reliance, autonomy, balanced interdependence between global,regional and local processes as well as participatory democracy at the grassrootlevels, sustainability of use of natural resources and respect of biological, cultural andcognitive diversities. In the absence of the appropriate articulation of the motive forces,any alternative model of development, a paradigm shift, carries little significance. Inshort, the alternative development paradigm must be situated in the matrix of decisivestruggles against imperialism and their domestic allies aimed at a viable vision of socio-economic-cu1tura1 and ecological harmony. The resultant scenario would be theemergence of multiple co-existing civilizations that respect both the people and thenature. Tomorrow will judge us.
Pages to are hidden for
"TRIBAL PROBLEMS IN INDIA"Please download to view full document